Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ladybird browser project

ladybird.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 293 posts

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#201

Post by materielle »

sylware wrote: post #162
nhinck3 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's basically all c++

Sad, I wish for a modern web engine in plain and simple C99 (let's allow us some benign bits from c11). I guess I'll stick to links and/or lynx and/or netsurf.

The code might be closer to your wish than you think.

So, they stay on the bleeding edge if C++ compilers. So in terms of core language features, they are C++20-something.

But, everything is written from scratch, including the standard library.

As such, the code is a lot cleaner than a typical C++ codebase.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#202

Post by bigfudge »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #191
naraic0o wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, they're also forcing Apple to allow other browser engines on iOS, which was previously banned. other, third party iOS browsers still used the safari webkit engine. > In addition, apps that use alternative browser engines — other than Apple’s WebKit — may negatively affect the user experience, including impacts to system performance and battery life. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang...

Every app may negatively impact system performance and battery life. A better webview could positively impact system performance and battery life. This statement from Apple was made in bad faith, and it didn't fool the regulators. It definitely shouldn't fool technologists.

It could improve performance, but let’s not kid ourselves that there are many companies that care about the minutiae of battery life as much as Apple. I mean, have you used a windows laptop recently. It’s -so- much worse than a MacBook that I refuse to believe it’s all about the m* magic chips. Sleep, power cycling, prioritisation just all seem to be better implemented.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#203

Post by sylware »

materielle wrote: post #201
sylware wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad, I wish for a modern web engine in plain and simple C99 (let's allow us some benign bits from c11). I guess I'll stick to links and/or lynx and/or netsurf.

The code might be closer to your wish than you think. So, they stay on the bleeding edge if C++ compilers. So in terms of core language features, they are C++20-something. But, everything is written from scratch, including the standard library. As such, the code is a lot cleaner than a typical C++ codebase.

The problem is c++ itself, with its grotesquely and absurdely massive and complex compilers, mechanically due to its syntax complexity. And yes, rust is hardly less worth.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#204

Post by bigfudge »

sph wrote: post #120
grey_earthling wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it works in Chrome, all web developers will adopt it This is why we, tech nerds who understand the problem, must resist monopolies: object to using such APIs. Chrome wouldn't be in quite this position if, instead of embracing the monopolist, more techies had warned their non-techy friends and family away from it, like they did with IE.

Laziness and inertia is the reason monopolies exist, yet when you inquire individually everybody have their own inane reasons to keep the status quo alive. Elsewhere in this comment section someone literally said they use Chrome because Reddit does not work in Firefox, which is utter nonsense.

This is a tragedy of the commons, rather than simple laziness. Choice of messaging apps is the same. I may know that the world would be a better place if everyone ditched WhatsApp and used signal, but I want to schedule tennis matches today, and the value of a open source future is distant and heavily discounted by the knowledge that it is low probability, even if I do my part.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#205

Post by pennomi »

JimDabell wrote: post #182
legacynl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> European Union is coming after apple.... seems short sighted I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of the EU in this matter. The objective is not to keep both companies on even keel, but it is merely about enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws. If this results in Google gaining a de-facto browser monopoly then those same laws can be used to break up that monopoly when we get to it. What would…

> What would be the alternative in your opinion? Force Apple to allow alternative rendering engines, but only the ones with People already mistake Blink-only APIs like Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web MIDI, etc. for web standards. The market is already dangerously close to where it was 20 years ago, where a vast number of web developers treat the most popular rendering engine as if it’s synonymous with the web. Handing mo…

Blink isn’t dangerous, Chrome is. You can have a privacy focused Blink browser.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#206

Post by bigfudge »

carlosjobim wrote: post #165
JTatts wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can guarantee that if a bank website stops working in Chrome they will be instantly working around the clock to fix the website!

Or not? I remember when banks required you to have IE long after nobody was using IE. I remember when banks showed an alert against using Safari long after it became the most common mobile browser. Banks also have their own apps and are not dependent on Chrome.

That was in a time when expectations were low and all the banks were pretty equally crap. There are better choices now, and even my mum would be pissed off of her bank website didn’t work in her current browser.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#207

Post by DiggyJohnson »

kramerger wrote: post #15

I would love to use this as my daily driver, but a lot of popular sites don't even work with Firefox. I hate what a small group of lazy front-end people have done to our world...

Which sites don't work with Firefox? I'm a daily Firefox user for 15 years now and I can count on a few fingers the amount of sites that were "broken" in FF (and weren't a legacy IE issue).

This seems like hyperbole, frankly.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#208

Post by DiggyJohnson »

adontz wrote: post #181
Scarblac wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is Hacker News, not just Lets Bring Yet Another Product To Market news. He is doing this for fun and to be creative, is incredibly inspiring for a lot of people, and actually gets things done on top. The epitome of a hacker, I want to be more like him.

Have you ever wondered what ycombinator.com is in news.yconbinator.com?

Do you want what you're arguing for?

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#209

Post by sowbug »

pjerem wrote: post #25
stephen_g wrote: post #19

It's really quite incredible that one guy basically started a project to create a whole operating system from scratch for fun and to give himself something interesting to do, and then accidentally created one of the most viable new browser engines in a decade or two... I've been watching the development videos for a year or two, and the speed that this has progressed in such a short time is unbelievable. Now they hav…

Wasn’t this guy working in the WebKit team at Apple for years before ? It’s still really impressive but he is not the new kid in town when we talk about developing browsers.

"It takes 20 years to make an overnight success."

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#210

Post by jorvi »

trashburger wrote: post #139
jorvi wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are making their own image decoders as an example -- inclding SVG Considering the vast amount of exploits that continually comes out of media decoders everywhere, this basically guarantees I will never ever use this browser.

Have you looked at how it's implemented? The image decoder is completely separate from the main browser and is in a sandboxed process (with restricted syscall and filesystem access). If the image decoder is exploited, there's nothing the attacker can do.

Look at how many of the past big exploit chains on iPhones, Chromium etc involved media decoding at some point in that chain.

It’s like crypto, you have to be very deliberate with your choices, and it’s generally ill-advised to roll your own.

Post reply on HN